I must say some of argument put up by people remind me of the early days of when XP came out.

Click to expand...

That XP was slower than Win98SE and even Win2k? That it was nothing but Win2k except with a hallucinogenic lego color theme and fisher price interface and dialogs for the inept? All those were true then and they are true today.

Like I said, for pure benchmarking purposes, depending on hardware in question I would recommend Win2k/XP, although in some benchmarks such as 3DMark 2003 and with select hardware Win2k is known to outperform XP by about 6%-7% or more. For really old hardware (KT400/nForce2 and earlier) Win98SE is a clear choice, since that's another easy 5% to 10% or so.

Ok stay tuned i will release in several hours the result what is faster in 3DMark06 XP Pro 32Bit or XP Pro 64Bit.

I am just installing both on the same HDD on different partitions.

Every windows update as well as Netframe 2.0 and DX9.0c updates will be installed.
All drivers will be installed with the latest versions also both OS will be tuned for max performance and both partitions will be defragmented completly before running 3DMark06 1.1.0

A few weeks ago, I installed xp 32 bit on another harddrive and ran 3dMark05 on it to see what I would get. (About 13900) I have already ran it on my Vista install and I was getting about 14100 which is obviously faster.

The other thing, the xp install was clean with no other programs. My Vista install had no tweaks and was running antivirus and other stuff. I noticed also that for the most part, it is the NVidia owners that end up with the lower Vista score.

(I am running an ATI 2900 Pro.) I ran these test at stock speeds. I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.

A few weeks ago, I installed xp 32 bit on another harddrive and ran 3dMark05 on it to see what I would get. (About 13900) I have already ran it on my Vista install and I was getting about 14100 which is obviously faster.

The other thing, the xp install was clean with no other programs. My Vista install had no tweaks and was running antivirus and other stuff. I noticed also that for the most part, it is the NVidia owners that end up with the lower Vista score.

(I am running an ATI 2900 Pro.) I ran these test at stock speeds. I went back to Vista, no point for me in going to XP again on my main machine.

Joe

Click to expand...

I might test your theory about ati users having less lower scores then in XP on Vista with 3DMark06.. I have a x1300 laying around..

i think vista simply uses more system resources running itself than xp does.. which is the reason pretty much everything runs faster on xp..

okay chuck some new super hardware and vista runs okay.. the vista overhead gets absorbed.. but horse power for horse power xp will win..

vista is the future.. soon we will all be forced to use it like it or not.. not much point in arguing which is best.. but at present i see little point in me moving to vista so i stick with xp.. but i know as time moves on this will change..

i think vista simply uses more system resources running itself than xp does.. which is the reason pretty much everything runs faster on xp..

okay chuck some new super hardware and vista runs okay.. the vista overhead gets absorbed.. but horse power for horse power xp will win..

vista is the future.. soon we will all be forced to use it like it or not.. not much point in arguing which is best.. but at present i see little point in me moving to vista so i stick with xp.. but i know as time moves on this will change..

Let us know what you end up with. My observation is totally unscientific though, I do not even own an NVidia card at this time to test it with myself.

Joe

Click to expand...

I talked with a ATI card owner who has a 3870 and is having also 400pt lower scores in Vista then with XP so i dont want to install Vista again just to prove what i have heard already from a reliable source (sneekypeet).

I talked with a ATI card owner who has a 3870 and is having also 400pt lower scores in Vista then with XP so i dont want to install Vista again just to prove what i have heard already from a reliable source (sneekypeet).

Click to expand...

It must depend on the combination of hardware and drivers then. Ok, thanks for letting me know.

Under normal operating conditions hard drive performance will not influence 3DMark results. And as long as you have enough RAM to prevent paging during the benchmark run, additional RAM will not provide any benefit either. 2 gigabytes should cover it in XP.

More might possibly benefit Vista but I don't have any firsthand experience to confirm or debunk that theory.

Point being, if you're genuinely interested in getting the best performance possible with whatever you actually do with your system, you should benchmark that.

Now if you prefer Vista over XP sufficiently that performance differences aren't a concern, more power to you. But it is a little disingenuous to say there's "no point" in using XP.

Click to expand...

Please do not misquote me, I said there is not point in "me" using xp on my main machine. (Oh, and Vista boots faster than XP for me on my main machine and my laptop.) And to the link above, what hardware did they use? Did they install all the day to day antivirus and antispyware applications that people use everyday in xp? Did they install any other day to day applications that people normally run in the background everyday?

The test is totally without merit, interesting, but without merit. /sarcasm on: It is almost a given that xp boots faster on initial install without any drivers or apps installed, should I just leave it that way? /sarcasm off. Let's have a real test on real day to day machines that people use and then see what happens.

Please do not misquote me, I said there is not point in "me" using xp on my main machine.

Click to expand...

I'm not misquoting you. Look at the context of whole post. I'm trying to help you get the best performance possible out of your system by drawing your attention to the fact that there's more to ideal performance than 3DMark.

It's great that you're getting better performance in certain areas, it really is. I'm truly pleased for you. But based on overwhelming evidence from just about everywhere else, I'm forced to suspect that even if it's unintentional, you're basing your decision on cherry-picked results that don't truly reflect overall performance. You see, lots of people can get Vista to boot faster. Lots of people can get apps to start more quickly under Vista than XP. But nobody can get Vista's general gaming performance (or for that matter the general performance of any really demanding app) up on par with XP.

Now I don't know about you, but my primary concern with regard to my system's performance has nothing to do with a few seconds at boot time, or time required to start an application. I'm much more interested in performance once I'm already up and runnning. What do I care if Crysis starts 15 or 20 seconds faster if I have to give up 5 or more fps once it's running? Is that a trade you're willing to make?

Like I said, maybe the eye candy and other whizbang features make it worth it to you so that you really don't care about giving up a little performance. But you ARE giving up a little performance, and in some cases a LOT of performance. And you should be aware of that.

I'm not misquoting you. Look at the context of whole post. I'm trying to help you get the best performance possible out of your system by drawing your attention to the fact that there's more to ideal performance than 3DMark.

It's great that you're getting better performance in certain areas, it really is. I'm truly pleased for you. But based on overwhelming evidence from just about everywhere else, I'm forced to suspect that even if it's unintentional, you're basing your decision on cherry-picked results that don't truly reflect overall performance. You see, lots of people can get Vista to boot faster. Lots of people can get apps to start more quickly under Vista than XP. But nobody can get Vista's general gaming performance (or for that matter the general performance of any really demanding app) up on par with XP.

Now I don't know about you, but my primary concern with regard to my system's performance has nothing to do with a few seconds at boot time, or time required to start an application. I'm much more interested in performance once I'm already up and runnning. What do I care if Crysis starts 15 or 20 seconds faster if I have to give up 5 or more fps once it's running? Is that a trade you're willing to make?

Like I said, maybe the eye candy and other whizbang features make it worth it to you so that you really don't care about giving up a little performance. But you ARE giving up a little performance, and in some cases a LOT of performance. And you should be aware of that.

Click to expand...

Well, I do respect your opinion and thank you for your response. If this was early last year, I would have had to agree with you. However, I have not seen any loss in the games I play or the stuff I do under Vista using it now.

That is one of the reasons I installed XP on a different drive to see if I could see any difference. (I have a new build since the first of this year and I only had Vista on it, hence the reason for the testing.)

I even play Crysis and it plays real well. (Not perfect but that is a hardware limit more than anything else.)

vista by useing its cache more effectively will use spare memory to store oft used apps.. this is why vista needs more memory in the first place..

with XP it annoys me to see only 400 meg of memory in use when i have 4 gigs of the stuff.. try as i might i cant get XP to make effective use of spare memory.. i would like it to cache more than it does..

if vista has anything going for it.. its the fact its been designed to make effective use of spare memory.. XP was designed around never having any spare memory and to be mean with it.. he he

lets give vista credit where it deserves it.. so things pop up quicker but run slower.. he he he

the pop up quicker is more noticable than the running slower thow.. assuming decent hardware..